Search

Heart failure (HF) and cancer are of the most common diseases globally, both associated with significant adverse outcomes and greatly impaired quality of life. Despite those similarities, over the last 15 years, the United States (USA) and European authorities have approved only 5 and 3 new drugs for HF respectively, none using an accelerated process and none for patients with either acute HF (AHF) or with HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). During the same period, more than 100 new drugs were approved for treatment of various cancers, several receiving accelerated approval. HF drugs in the last 15 years were mostly approved for reduction in mortality, whereas most approved cancer drugs addressed disease progression and surrogate markers. Consequently, the size of the trials in HF were far greater than those in oncology which was associated with lower probability of success. Given the larger study size and smaller probability of approval, pharma progressively reduces the necessary investments in new HF drugs. We suggest for HF drugs be developed, especially those used to treat patients with HFpEF and AHF, consideration of approval based beyond morbidity and mortality on improvements in symptoms and functional capacity and, like oncology, based on measures of disease progression and end organ damage. At the same time, HF drug development should adopt some approaches used in other diseases (such as oncology) focusing on better defining specific phenotypes and defining specific disease-related targets for new drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients admitted for acute heart failure (AHF) experience high rates of in-hospital and post-discharge morbidity and mortality despite current therapies. Serelaxin is recombinant human relaxin-2, a hormone with vasodilatory and end-organ protective effects believed to play a central role in the cardiovascular and renal adaptations of human pregnancy. In the phase 3 RELAX-AHF trial, serelaxin met its primary endpoint of improving dyspnoea through day 5 in patients admitted for AHF. Compared to placebo, serelaxin also reduced worsening heart failure (WHF) by 47% through day 5 and both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality by 37% through day 180. RELAX-AHF-2 ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01870778) is designed to confirm serelaxin's effect on these clinical outcomes. RELAX-AHF-2 is a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven, phase 3 trial enrolling ∼6800 patients hospitalized for AHF with dyspnoea, congestion on chest radiograph, increased natriuretic peptide levels, mild-to-moderate renal insufficiency, and systolic blood pressure ≥125 mmHg. Patients are randomized within 16 h of presentation to 48 h intravenous infusions of serelaxin (30 µg/kg/day) or placebo, both in addition to standard of care treatments. The primary objectives are to demonstrate that serelaxin is superior to placebo in reducing: (i) 180 day cardiovascular death, and (ii) occurrence of WHF through day 5. Key secondary endpoints include 180 day all-cause mortality, composite of 180 day combined cardiovascular mortality or heart failure/renal failure rehospitalization, and in-hospital length of stay during index AHF. The results from RELAX-AHF-2 will provide data on the potential beneficial effect of serelaxin on cardiovascular mortality and WHF in selected patients with AHF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Heart failure is a leading cause of hospital admission and readmission in older adults. The new United States healthcare reform law has created provisions for financial penalties for hospitals with higher than expected 30-day all-cause readmission rates for hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years with heart failure. We examined the effect of digoxin on 30-day all-cause hospital admission in older patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. Methods: In the main Digitalis Investigation Group trial, 6800 ambulatory patients with chronic heart failure (ejection fraction ≤45%) were randomly assigned to digoxin or placebo. Of these, 3405 were aged ≥65 years (mean age, 72 years; 25% were women; 11% were nonwhite). The main outcome in the current analysis was 30-day all-cause hospital admission. Results: In the first 30 days after randomization, all-cause hospitalization occurred in 5.4% (92/1693) and 8.1% (139/1712) of patients in the digoxin and placebo groups, respectively, (hazard ratio {HR} when digoxin was compared with placebo, 0.66; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-0.86; P=.002). Digoxin also reduced both 30-day cardiovascular (3.5% vs 6.5%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38-0.72; P<.001) and heart failure (1.7 vs 4.2%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26-0.62; P<.001) hospitalizations, with similar trends for 30-day all-cause mortality (0.7% vs 1.3%; HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.27-1.11; P=.096). Younger patients were at lower risk of events but obtained similar benefits from digoxin. Conclusions: Digoxin reduces 30-day all-cause hospital admission in ambulatory older patients with chronic systolic heart failure. Future studies need to examine its effect on 30-day all-cause hospital readmission in hospitalized patients with acute heart failure. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article provides a summary of practical recommendations for the prehospital and early management of patients with acute heart failure syndromes. These recommendations were developed from a meeting of experts in cardiology, emergency medicine, and intensive care medicine from Europe and the U.S. These are based on a clinical classification system considering the initial systolic blood pressure and other symptoms.

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) composed of patients, academic investigators from the United States and Europe, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, payers, and industry. Members discussed the measure, remote capture, and clinical utility of functional and quality-of-life endpoints for use in clinical trials of heart failure and cardiovascular therapeutics, with the goal of improving the efficiency of heart failure and cardiovascular clinical research, evidence generation, and thereby patient quality of life, functional status, and survival. Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and maximal and submaximal exercise tolerance are standardized and validated, but actigraphy remains inconsistent as a potential endpoint. This paper details those discussions and consensus recommendations., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the FDA or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Abraham has received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Zoll Respicardia, speaker honoraria from Impulse Dynamics, salary support from V-Wave Medical, and research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr Filippatos has received consulting income from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor; and has received lecture fees from Merck. Dr Lindenfeld has received consulting fees from Novartis, Abbott, ResMed, V-Wave, CVRx, and Cytokinetics. Dr Ahmad has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, Relypsa, and Novartis. Dr Felker has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the American Heart Association, Amgen, Merck, Cytokinetics, and Roche Diagnostics; and has received consulting fees from Novartis, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, Cardionomic, Relypsa, V-Wave, Myokardia, Innolife, EBR Systems, Arena, Abbott, Sphingotec, Roche Diagnostics, Alnylam, LivaNova, Windtree Therapeutics, Rocket Pharma, and SC Pharma. Dr Kitzman has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, DCRI, and Corvia; has received grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Novartis; and has stock in Gilead. Dr Lewis has received consulting fees from Novartis; and has received institutional research grant support from Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr Mentz has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Janssen, Luitpold, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Akros, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, InnoLife, Luitpold/American Reagent, Novartis, Otsuka, ResMed, and the National Institutes of Health (grants U01HL125511-01A1 and R01AG045551-01A1). Dr Solomon has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, the National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and has received consulting fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, and Cardiac Dimensions. Dr Teerlink has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Stealth Health; and has received research funding from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and scPharma. Dr Unger’s employer, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr Whellan has received grant support from the National Institutes of Health (grant R01AG045551). Dr Wittes’s employer, Wittes LLC, has contracts with many companies, some of which are developing treatments for HF. Dr Anker has received fees from Abbott, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiac Dimension, Cordio, Impulse Dynamics, Novartis, Occlutech, Servier, and Vifor Pharma; and has received grant support from Abbott and Vifor Pharma. Dr O’Connor has received grant or research support from Roche Diagnostics and Merck; and has received consulting fees from Merck, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Abiomed, and Windtree. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Recovery of well-being after hospitalisation for acute heart failure (AHF) is a measure of the success of interventions and the quality of care but has rarely been quantified. Accordingly, we measured health status after discharge in an international registry (REPORT-HF) of AHF., Methods and Results: The analysis included 4606 patients with AHF who survived to hospital discharge, had known vital status at 6 months, and were enrolled in the United States of America, Russian Federation, or Western Europe, where the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) was administered. Median age was 69 years (quartiles 59-78), 40% were women, and 34% had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, and 12% patients died by 6 months. Of 2475 patients with a follow-up KCCQ, 28% were 'alive and well' (KCCQ >75), while 43% had poor health status (KCCQ ≤50). Being 'alive and well' was associated with new-onset AHF, LVEF <40%, younger age, higher baseline KCCQ, country, and race. Associations were similar for increasing health status, with the exception of country and addition of comorbidities., Conclusion: In this international global registry, health status recovery after AHF hospitalisation was highly variable. Those with the best health status at 6 months were younger, had new-onset heart failure, and higher baseline KCCQ; nearly one-third of survivors were 'alive and well'. Investigating reasons for changes in KCCQ after hospitalisation might identify new therapeutic targets to improve patient-centred outcomes., (© 2022 European Society of Cardiology.)

The Heart Failure Academic Research Consortium is a partnership between the Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) and Academic Research Consortium (ARC), comprised of leading heart failure (HF) academic research investigators, patients, United States (US) Food and Drug Administration representatives, and industry members from the US and Europe. A series of meetings were convened to establish definitions and key concepts for the evaluation of HF therapies including optimal medical and device background therapy, clinical trial design elements and statistical concepts, and study endpoints. This manuscript summarizes the expert panel discussions as consensus recommendations focused on populations and endpoint definitions; it is not exhaustive or restrictive, but designed to stimulate HF clinical trial innovation., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures W.T.A. has received consulting fees from Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, CVRx, Edwards Lifesciences, Respicardia, and research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. M.A.P. has received consulting fees from Amgen, Cytokinetics, and Windtree, and grant support from the United States Food and Drug Administration. G.F. has received consulting income from Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Servier, and Vifor, and lecture fees from Merck. J.L. has received consulting fees from Novartis, Abbott, ResMed, VWave, CVRx, and Cytokinetics. R.M. has received institutional research grant support from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and OrbusNeich; has served on scientific advisory boards of PLx Opco/PLx Pharma, Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs), and Bristol-Myers Squibb; has served on the executive committees of Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Osprey Medical; has served on the data safety monitoring board of Watermark Research Partners; has served as a consultant for Abbott Laboratories, Abiomed (spouse), Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medscape/Web MD, Siemens Medical Solutions, The Medicines Company (spouse), Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roivant Sciences, Spectranetics/Philips/Volcano Corporation, and Sanofi; and has equity in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical Corporation. J.L.J. is a trustee of the American College of Cardiology, is a board member of Imbria Pharmaceuticals, has received grant support from Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Roche Diagnostics, Abbott, Singulex and Prevencio, consulting income from Abbott, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, and Roche Diagnostics, and participates in clinical endpoint committees/data safety monitoring boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Takeda. M.A.K. has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis; and grants and research support from Ironwood and Livanova. M.W.K. has received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Angel Medical Systems, Biosensors, CSI, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, and St Jude Medical, and has received grant funding from Abbott Vascular, Angel Medical Systems, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, Biosensors, CSI, and St Jude Medical. E.F.L. has received consulting fees from Novartis, and institutional research grant support from Amgen, Novartis, and Sanofi. J.P.P. has received grant support from Abbott, the American Heart Association, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, Bayer, Boston Scientific, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and Philips, and has received consulting fees from Abbott, Allergan, ARCA Biopharma, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, LivaNova, Medtronic, Milestone, Sanofi, Philips, and Up-to-Date. S.D.S. has received research grants from Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bellerophon, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celladon, Cytokinetics, Eidos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ionis, Lone Star Heart, Mesoblast, MyoKardia, U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Novartis, Sanofi Pasteur, and Theracos; and consulting fees from Akros, Alnylam, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardior, Corvia, Cytokinetics, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Ironwood, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Theracos, Quantum Genetics, Cardurion, AoBiome, Janssen, and Cardiac Dimensions. J.R.T. has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Novartis, and Stealth Health, and research funding from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, scPharma. S.D.A. has received clinical trial-related fees from Abbott Vascular, Servier, Vifor, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Thermo Fisher, Respicardia, and Novartis. C.M.O’C. has received research support from Roche Diagnostics; has received research support and is a consultant for Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Windtree, and Neurotronik, and is a co-owner of Biscardia. All other authors have nothing to disclose. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the United States Food and Drug Administration or the United States Department of Health and Human Services., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: Neurohormonal activation characterizes chronic heart failure (HF) and is a well-established therapeutic target. Neurohormonal activation may also play a key role in acute HF (AHF). We aim to describe the association between plasma renin activity (PRA) and three AHF outcomes: (i) worsening HF or death through day 5 of hospitalization; (ii) HF rehospitalization or death through day 30; and (iii) all-cause death through day 30., Methods and Results: A secondary analysis of the BLAST-AHF trial was performed. Eligible patients had a history of HF, elevated natriuretic peptides, signs and symptoms of HF, systolic blood pressure >120 mmHg, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate between 20-75 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . The primary trial was neutral, with no differential effect of study drug by PRA levels. Baseline PRA levels were grouped into tertiles. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard model determined the association of PRA levels with outcomes (α set at P < 0.05). Of 618 randomized patients, 578 (93.5%) had a baseline PRA. PRA was modestly, but significantly, associated with each outcome without adjustment [worsening HF or death through day 5: hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.23, P = 0.04; HF rehospitalization or death through day 30: HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.26, P = 0.02; all-cause death through day 30: HR 1.18, 95% CI 1.02-1.37, P = 0.03]. After multivariable adjustment, PRA was only significantly associated with HF rehospitalization or death through day 30 (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.32, P = 0.04)., Conclusion: Baseline PRA levels are associated with increased risk for the composite of 30-day HF rehospitalization or death in patients with AHF., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM-HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes., Methods and Results: Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA Long-Term Heart Failure (HF-LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM-HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub-optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM-HF and guidelines. One-year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all-cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM-HF., Conclusions: Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC-EORP-HFA HF-LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM-HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM-HF enalapril group., (© 2019 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2019 European Society of Cardiology.)

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death. Proneurotensin is a biomarker associated with the development of cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. We assessed the association of fasting proneurotensin with mortal events by gender and race (black-white) in a US population. Using a case-cohort subpopulation of the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study, fasting proneurotensin was measured on a 1,046-person subcohort and in 651 participants with incident coronary heart disease. Higher proneurotensin was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 1.6 per interquartile range, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3 to 1.9) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.6). For all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, association was stronger in women (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.6 and HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 4.7, respectively) than men (HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.8 and HR 1.4, 95% CI 0.9 to 2.3, respectively), although this difference was not significant. Proneurotensin predicted all-cause mortality in both races and was not predictive of cardiovascular mortality in whites but was in blacks. Proneurotensin was not associated with incident coronary heart disease events. Elevated proneurotensin levels predicted all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in both genders, with a trend toward stronger association in women. Associations were similar in blacks and whites. In conclusion, proneurotensin may be a useful biomarker for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality regardless of race, and it is potentially specific in women., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: TRV027, a 'biased' ligand of the angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R), did not affect a composite clinical outcome at 30 days in a phase 2b acute heart failure (AHF) trial (BLAST-AHF)., Methods: Post-hoc analyses from BLAST-AHF (n = 618) examined the effects of TRV027 by baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) on changes in renal function and 180-day outcomes. Interactions between baseline SBP and select endpoints were identified utilizing a subpopulation treatment effect pattern plots (STEPP) analysis, then grouping of patients by SBP tertile: < 127, ≥ 127 to < 140, and ≥ 140 mmHg., Results: A trend towards increased creatinine in the first 3 days was noted in the lower SBP tertile, while in those in the higher two tertiles, TRV027, especially the 1 mg/h dose, reduced creatinine at days 5 and 30. Beneficial effects on 180-day all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) death or readmission were observed in the two higher SBP tertiles (SBP ≥ 127 mmHg) in the TRV027 1 mg/h dose group (all-cause mortality HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.14-1.06, p = 0.056; CV death or HF/RF rehospitalization HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28-1.01, p = 0.049), while more adverse outcomes were observed in patients in the lower SBP tertile., Conclusions: This post-hoc analysis of the BLAST-AHF study suggests contrasting effects of TRV027 by baseline SBP, with trends towards lower 180-day event rates in patients enrolled with higher baseline SBP, especially when given lower doses of TRV027.

Aims: We evaluated the added prognostic value of a multi-time point-based multimarker panel of biomarkers in patients with acute heart failure (AHF)., Methods and Results: Seven circulating biomarkers [NT-proBNP, high sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), soluble ST2 (sST2), growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15), cystatin-C, galectin-3, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)] were measured at baseline and on days 2, 5, 14, and 60 in 1161 patients enrolled in the RELAX-AHF trial. Patients with BNP ≥350 ng/L or NT-proBNP ≥1400 ng/L, mild to moderate renal impairment, and systolic blood pressure >125 mmHg were included in the trial. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the incremental value of serial measurement of biomarkers. Added value of individual biomarkers and their combination, on top of a pre-specified baseline model, was quantified with the gain in the C-index. Serial biomarker evaluation showed incremental predictive value over baseline measurements alone for the prediction of 180-day cardiovascular mortality except for galectin-3. While a repeat measurement as early as day 2 was adequate for NT-proBNP and cystatin-C in terms of maximizing discriminatory accuracy, further measurements on days 14 and 60 provided added value for hs-cTnT, GDF-15, sST2, and hs-CRP. Individual biomarker additions on top of the baseline model showed additional prognostic value. The greatest prognostic gain was, however, attained with the combination of NT-proBNP, hs-cTnT, GDF-15, and sST2, which yielded 0.08 unit absolute increment in the C-index to 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.91]., Conclusion: In patients with AHF and mild to moderate renal impairment, a multimarker approach based on a panel of serially evaluated biomarkers provides the greatest prognostic improvement unmatched by a single time point-based single marker strategy., (© 2017 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure © 2017 European Society of Cardiology.)

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most prevalent valve disorders and has numerous etiologies, including primary (organic) MR, due to underlying degenerative/structural mitral valve (MV) pathology, and secondary (functional) MR, which is principally caused by global or regional left ventricular remodeling and/or severe left atrial dilation. Diagnosis and optimal management of MR requires integration of valve disease and heart failure specialists, MV cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists with expertise in structural heart disease, and imaging experts. The introduction of transcatheter MV therapies has highlighted the need for a consensus approach to pragmatic clinical trial design and uniform endpoint definitions to evaluate outcomes in patients with MR. The Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration between leading academic research organizations and physician-scientists specializing in MV disease from the United States and Europe. Three in-person meetings were held in Virginia and New York during which 44 heart failure, valve, and imaging experts, MV surgeons and interventional cardiologists, clinical trial specialists and statisticians, and representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered all aspects of MV pathophysiology, prognosis, and therapies, culminating in a 2-part document describing consensus recommendations for clinical trial design (Part 1) and endpoint definitions (Part 2) to guide evaluation of transcatheter and surgical therapies for MR. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative effectiveness evaluation of new devices and approaches to treat MR. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment of new transcatheter MV devices, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Mitral regurgitation (MR) is one of the most prevalent valve disorders and has numerous etiologies, including primary (organic) MR, due to underlying degenerative/structural mitral valve (MV) pathology, and secondary (functional) MR, which is principally caused by global or regional left ventricular remodeling and/or severe left atrial dilation. Diagnosis and optimal management of MR requires integration of valve disease and heart failure specialists, MV cardiac surgeons, interventional cardiologists with expertise in structural heart disease, and imaging experts. The introduction of transcatheter MV therapies has highlighted the need for a consensus approach to pragmatic clinical trial design and uniform endpoint definitions to evaluate outcomes in patients with MR. The Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium is a collaboration between leading academic research organizations and physician-scientists specializing in MV disease from the United States and Europe. Three in-person meetings were held in Virginia and New York during which 44 heart failure, valve, and imaging experts, MV surgeons and interventional cardiologists, clinical trial specialists and statisticians, and representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration considered all aspects of MV pathophysiology, prognosis, and therapies, culminating in a 2-part document describing consensus recommendations for clinical trial design (Part 1) and endpoint definitions (Part 2) to guide evaluation of transcatheter and surgical therapies for MR. The adoption of these recommendations will afford robustness and consistency in the comparative effectiveness evaluation of new devices and approaches to treat MR. These principles may be useful for regulatory assessment of new transcatheter MV devices, as well as for monitoring local and regional outcomes to guide quality improvement initiatives., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

With one possible exception, the last decade of clinical trials in hospitalized heart failure (HHF) patients has failed to demonstrate improvement in long-term clinical outcomes. This trend necessitates a need to evaluate optimal drug development strategies and standards of trial conduct. It has become increasingly important to recognize the heterogeneity among HHF patients and the differential characterization of novel drug candidates. Targeting these agents to specific subpopulations may afford optimal net response related to the particular mode of action of the drug. Analyses of previous trials demonstrate profound differences in the baseline characteristics of patients enrolled across global regions and participating sites. Such differences may influence risks for events and interpretation of results. Therefore, the actual execution of trials and the epidemiology of HHF populations at the investigative sites must be taken into consideration. Collaboration among participating sites including the provision of registry data tailored to the planned development program will optimize trial conduct. Observational data prior to study initiation may enable sites to feedback and engage in protocol development to allow for feasible and valid clinical trial conduct. This site-centered, epidemiology-based network environment may facilitate studies in specific patient populations and promote optimal data collection and clear interpretation of drug safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the roundtable discussion held by a multidisciplinary team of representatives from academia, National Institutes of Health, industry, regulatory agencies, payers, and contract and academic research organizations to answer the question: Who should be targeted for novel therapies in HHF?

Background: Heart failure is the leading cause for hospital readmission, the reduction of which is a priority under the Affordable Care Act. Digoxin reduces 30-day all-cause hospital admission in chronic systolic heart failure. Whether digoxin is effective in reducing readmission after hospitalization for acute decompensation remains unknown., Methods: Of the 5153 Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute heart failure and not receiving digoxin, 1054 (20%) received new discharge prescriptions for digoxin. Propensity scores for digoxin use, estimated for each of the 5153 patients, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 1842 (921 pairs) patients (mean age, 76 years; 56% women; 25% African American) receiving and not receiving digoxin, who were balanced on 55 baseline characteristics., Results: Thirty-day all-cause readmission occurred in 17% and 22% of matched patients receiving and not receiving digoxin, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] for digoxin, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.95). This beneficial association was observed only in those with ejection fraction <45% (HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.83), but not in those with ejection fraction ≥ 45% (HR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60-1.37; P for interaction, .145), a difference that persisted throughout the first 12 months postdischarge (P for interaction, .019). HRs (95% CIs) for 12-month heart failure readmission and all-cause mortality were 0.72 (0.61-0.86) and 0.83 (0.70-0.98), respectively., Conclusions: In Medicare beneficiaries with systolic heart failure, a discharge prescription of digoxin was associated with lower 30-day all-cause hospital readmission, which was maintained at 12 months, and was not at the expense of higher mortality. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To test the hypothesis that baseline hypoalbuminaemia is associated with incident heart failure (HF) in community-dwelling older adults., Methods and Results: Of the 5795 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years in the Cardiovascular Health Study, 5450 were free of centrally adjudicated prevalent HF at baseline, and also had data on baseline serum albumin. Of these, 599 (11%) had hypoalbuminaemia, defined as baseline serum albumin levels ≤3.5 mg/dL. Propensity scores for hypoalbuminaemia were calculated for each patient and used to assemble a matched cohort of 582 pairs of participants with and without hypoalbuminaemia, who were well balanced on 58 baseline characteristics. Using Cox regression models, we estimated the association of hypoalbuminaemia with centrally adjudicated incident HF during 9.6 years of median follow-up. Matched participants had a mean (±SD) age of 74 (±6) years, 62% were women, and 16% were African Americans. Incident HF occurred in 25 and 20% of matched participants with and without hypoalbuminaemia, respectively [hazard ratio when hypoalbuminaemia was compared with normoalbuminaemia, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.85; P = 0.020]. Pre-match unadjusted, multivariable-adjusted, and propensity-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for incident HF associated with hypoalbuminaemia were 1.33 (1.12-1.58; P = 0.001), 1.33 (1.11-1.60; P = 0.002), and 1.25 (1.04-1.50; P= 0.016), respectively. The combined endpoint of incident HF or all-cause mortality occurred in 59 and 50% of matched participants with and without hypoalbuminaemia, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.61; P= 0.002)., Conclusions: Among community-dwelling older adults without HF, baseline hypoalbuminaemia was associated with increased risk of incident HF during 10 years of follow-up.

Aim: To determine if the association between hyperuricaemia and poor outcomes in heart failure (HF) varies by chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Methods and Results: Of the 2645 systolic HF patients in the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial with data on baseline serum uric acid, 1422 had hyperuricaemia (uric acid ≥6 mg/dL for women and ≥8 mg/dL for men). Propensity scores for hyperuricaemia, estimated for each patient, were used to assemble a matched cohort of 630 pairs of patients with and without hyperuricaemia who were balanced on 75 baseline characteristics. Associations of hyperuricaemia with outcomes during 25 months of median follow-up were examined in all patients and in those with and without CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate of <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Hyperuricaemia-associated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization were 1.44 (1.12-1.85, P = 0.005) and 1.27 (1.02-1.58, P = 0.031), respectively. Hazard ratios (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality among those with and without CKD were 0.96 (0.70-1.31, P = 0.792) and 1.40 (1.08-1.82, P = 0.011), respectively (P for interaction, 0.071), and those for HF hospitalization among those with and without CKD were 0.99 (0.74-1.33, P = 0.942) and 1.49 (1.19-1.86, P = 0.001), respectively (P for interaction, 0.033)., Conclusion: Hyperuricaemia has a significant association with poor outcomes in HF patients without CKD but not in those with CKD, suggesting that hyperuricaemia may predict poor outcomes when it is primarily a marker of increased xanthine oxidase activity, but not when it is primarily due to impaired renal excretion of uric acid.

Increased serum uric acid (UA) is associated with incident heart failure (HF). However, whether it is a direct effect of UA or an effect of increased xanthine oxidase (XO) is unknown. Because hyperuricemia in hyperinsulinemia is primarily due to impaired renal UA excretion, its association with incident HF would suggest a direct UA effect. In contrast, hyperuricemia in normoinsulinemia is likely due to increased UA production and thus its association with incident HF would suggest an XO effect. To clarify this, we examined the association of hyperuricemia with centrally adjudicated incident HF in Cardiovascular Health Study participants with and without hyperinsulinemia. Of the 5,411 participants ≥ 65 years of age without baseline HF, 1,491 (28%) had hyperuricemia (serum UA ≥ 6 mg/dl for women and ≥ 7 mg/dl for men). Propensity scores for hyperuricemia were estimated using 63 baseline characteristics. Mean serum UA levels were 6.0 and 5.3 mg/dl in those with (n = 2,731) and those without (n = 2,680) hyperinsulinemia (median serum insulin ≥ 13 mU/L), respectively (p < 0.001). Propensity-adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for hyperuricemia-associated incident HF during 8 years of median follow-up were 0.99 (0.83 to 1.18, p = 0.886) and 1.32 (1.04 to 1.67, p = 0.021) for those with and without hyperinsulinemia respectively (p for interaction = 0.014). In conclusion, the absence of an association of hyperuricemia with incident HF in those with hyperinsulinemia (despite a significantly higher mean serum UA) and a significant association in normoinsulinemia suggest that UA has no intrinsic association with incident HF and that it may predict incident HF when it is a marker of increased of XO activity., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Acute Heart Failure is a heterogeneous set of syndromes associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There are several classifications of acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS) based on pathophysiology or clinical presentation. In the USA and in Europe, AHFS are the first cause of hospitalization of the elderly, and the leading health care cost. Despite this clinical and social importance, AHFS have received little attention from clinicians and researchers. Recently published epidemiological studies described clinical presentation, characteristics and treatment of over 100,000 patients hospitalized with AHFS. These studies also underlined the poor, short, and medium term prognosis, especially for the most severe patients admitted to an intensive care unit, with in-hospital mortality of 28%. Further epidemiological and clinical research is needed to improve our understanding of AHFS, thereby enhancing patient care.